So let’s be clear here, he was charged with felony murder of his accomplice in a dangerous felony. Felony murder is the crime of killing of a person in the commission of a dangerous crime.
It’s pretty debatable if it makes sense to charge someone for felony murder if they were an accomplice, but that’s a different discussion than the framing of “charged for a murder committed by cops”. The cops didn’t murder this guy, it seems pretty clear that the cops acted in self defense here. So it’s not like they transferred the “blame” as it were from murderous cops to an innocent kid.
The reason felony murder exists is that even if there was no actual intent to kill, the risk of death during a dangerous crime is so high it becomes reckless. There’s a similar crime of depraved heart murder where the act that causes the death of someone is so dangerous that one could only do it if they had no concern of killing someone. You go into a felony knowing someone could get hurt or killed and do it anyway, so you are responsible for the consequences whether you “pulled the trigger” or not. A more common example would be if you and a buddy are robbing a bank and your buddy kills a teller or a cop, you get charged with felony murder.
It’s pretty debatable if it makes sense to charge someone for felony murder if they were an accomplice
That’s is the felony murder rule. It’s a transfered intent doctrine. I don’t think the rule itself is very controversial. This isn’t even a controversial application of the law except for the length of the sentence and the age of the offender. While those are motivating factors at sentencing, others have posted the many aggravating factors that apply in the case. And while prior convictions and prior arrests aren’t relevant at the trial, they are relevant at the sentencing.
It’s part of felony murder but not the whole thing. The other parts of felony murder are if your accomplice intentionally kills someone or the death of someone is caused without intent (such as hitting a pedestrian while fleeing).
I could make the argument that by participating in a felony, accomplices are accepting the inherent risk, so if they happen to get hurt or killed that’s on them and shouldn’t be considered felony murder.
That first part is the same part. It’s the same thing. Transferred intent. Your accomplice intends the foreseeable consequences of their actions, and you theirs.
I could make the argument that by participating in a felony, accomplices are accepting the inherent risk, so if they happen to get hurt or killed that’s on them and shouldn’t be considered felony murder.
Sure, I suppose that’s as logical of a thing to do. It’s because of public policy and the social economics of it that we don’t. We as a society and our legal system, at our best, should be indemnifying, like, employees that get hurt on the job, firefighters that get lung cancer and such, delivery drivers that get bit by dogs, Major League Baseball (/s), and gun manufacturers (/s), not convicted felons who conspired to do a thing that could foreseeably and then did get their accomplice killed. They don’t have the political capital to get a law like that passed. Just, as a group, not a lot of lobbying money for convicted felonious coconspirators whose accomplice died in the course and scope of it.
It’s only felony murder when the accomplice is killed by something that justifies making the conduct illegal in the first place. That limits the concern of runaway criminal liability. Also I think just doctrinally, one can’t assume a risk of wrongful death; it would essentially legalize negligent or reckless homicide.